Ferenczi considers hypnosis to be a resuscitation of infantile erotic masochistic adjustments. The hypnotizer is an image either of the father—paternal hypnosis—or of the mother—maternal hypnosis. Instinctive impulses from the domain of the oedipus complex are at the center of hypnosis. Ferenczi also places suggestion and suggestibility at the center of his considerations.

As a matter of fact, hypnosis and suggestibility have an erotic root. If one hypnotizes women, the hypnotizer often has occasion to observe, just before the hypnotic sleep and just after the awakening, the glance of surrender which is characteristic of sexual excitement. A trembling corresponding to the trembling under erotic excitement is not infrequent. The hysteriform rigidities at the beginning of a hypnosis frequently show a very distinct relation with the motions of coitus. On attempting to obtain statements from the hypnotized, one is often told of a sensually pleasant feeling, of a delightful sense of fatigue, etc. Quite frequently, sexual excitement is frankly admitted. The accusations frequently made by hypnotized patients against the hypnotizer, that he has misused them are due to the erotic imaginings aroused by the hypnosis. A woman patient (propably dementia precox) whom we observed had the distinct impression during a lay hypnosis conducted in the presence of other persons that she was being subjected to a compulsion to think: " I love you." The clairvoyance of dementia precox patients with regard to psychological problems is particularly apparent in the case of hypnosis. Schisophrenic and paraphrenic patients consider being hypnotized and being influenced sexually to be one and the same thing. Even the linguistic usage of daily life must not be ignored; erotic phenomena are often conceived as involving magic or hypnosis. " You have hypnotized me " has actually become an expression denoting an erotic compulsion. A portion of the typical fear of women is the fear of being violated under hypnosis. We have often heard such tales from women patients of the clinic, hypnotized by us, although we make it a principle never to hypnotize except in the presence of third persons. This statement was particularly striking when uttered by an intelligent female bank clerk, who had, to be sure, become afflicted with her neurosis by reason of her father's efforts to possess her sexually and of his repeated attempts to violate her. The fear of violation is without doubt an expression of the corresponding wish, which has been aroused by the hypnosis. Gentle speech, shouted rebukes, manhandling, are not only devices in the technique of hypnosis, but also in that of erotic seduction, " fixation," stroking—certain techniques even make very extensive use of stroking the body—are common both to hypnosis and to the erotic.

The results of phenomena in animals resembling hypnosis yield very similar material (cf., on this point, Mangold, as well as below).

This view of the matter might of course be contradicted with the statement that hypnosis may be practiced not only between persons of different sex, but that there may also be a hypnosis of man by man and of woman by woman. In general, there is no reason to assume that these hypnoses are more difficult to bring about than those between persons of opposite sex. To be sure, we have been taught by psychoanalysis that homosexual inclinations are present in all persons and it may be assumed that hypnosis between persons of the same sex may operate through the homosexual tendencies of man. We may here again refer to the many data given by paranoid-schizophrenes, who very frequently find themselves influenced in a homosexual direction by hypnosis. Psychoanalysis is the surest means of determining both the heterosexual impulse as well as the homosexual impulse in hypnosis. For very frequently persons are taken for analysis who have already been subjected to hypnotic treatment. A particularly instructive example of this kind is given below.

A university student, aged twenty-two, who had already undergone, in his period of puberty, a short phase of pronounced compulsory delusion symptoms, had recently been suffering for some months from a number of compulsory symptoms in which anal erotic conditions were evident to a striking degree, and in part quite frankly expressed. Since the beginning of his illness, the patient had been suffering from a stubborn obstipation for which no basis could be found either clinically or by Roentgen observation; he suffered from involuntary passing of flatus, always occurring in certain situations beset with complexes and suffered still more by his fear of their occurrence. But these principal symptoms were only the center of a number of other somatic symptoms which seemed tobecome blocked in a peculiar manner—not to be described here— on their way to conversion and to a complete formation of somatic symptoms, and also on account of the entire system of compulsory neurotic thought productions, fears, and impulses, together with its accompanying opposite in the form of the ego impulses and the ego ideal. The mechanism of this symptomatology turned out, on analysis, to be uncommonly fixed; the symptoms were interrelated in a peculiarly rigid manner and they appeared in a typical condition of dependence upon definite determining internal and external experiences. For instance, to take but a .single example, namely, the symptom of the passing of flatus. This phenomenon occurred particularly in situations in which any kind of attempt—promising even the remotest possibility of a love relation—was made to approach the female sex; the tormenting fact about the flatulescence which appeared under these circumstances was in the great frequency of the flatus administered, as it were, in dosi refracta, so that the patient hardly dared thereafter to emerge from his room. On analysis, this passing of flatus turned out to be a sort of " signal" on the part of the unconscious, an expression of inhibited anal and homosexual adjustment, which thus most effectively expressed their opposition to the establishment of any heterosexual relation. We shall go further into this connection later. In an extremely depressed mental state—seclusive, misanthropic, incapable of any activity—this patient now sought psychotherapeutic treatment. For a number of reasons, it was first attempted to interfere with the symptoms of the patient by the path of hypnosis, and, in the first place, to get at the state of obstipation. After several hypnotic sessions, as a result of which only a temporary and unsatisfactory success could be recorded, psychoanalytic treatment was begun with the patient, and considerable improvement attained after a number of months. The patient has been freed from his somatic symptoms and is now again pursuing his studies with great zeal and success.

At the conclusion of an analytic session, this patient, after the above mentioned improvement had already been observed, was asked what thoughts and feelings had been his before going to sleep under hypnosis. He at once reported a feeling of " having to laugh" which regularly came upon him before going to sleep and presented the following notions in this connection, without being asked. In the gymnasium, he had had a professor at whom he had been obliged to laugh very much, apparently a stupid, narrow-minded person. Then, at the age of about twelve, he had attended the Mosaic religious instruction, together with his cousin; his cousin had once stealthily made a drawing of a snake during the recitation period, and had said that the snake was the professor of history, at which he, the patient, could not help laughing. A later notion was a recollection of the fact that, when a boy of about six years of age, he had often been in terror while defecating, that snakes might creep into his anus. At the end, he added somewhat shyly the supplementary remark that the professor in the first notion, had been an old man, but to be sure, he had been well up on grammar. The situation, as may be inferred from this complete series of notions, is fairly unambiguous. In connection with the fear of snakes while defecating, it should be noted that this fear had already been expressed on an earlier occasion during a dream analysis and subsequently became a sort of co-reminiscence to reveal libidinous relations and homosexual inclinations toward the patient's father. For the sake of completeness, let us repeat the succession of notions as they were stated at that time. The young man at first believes he recalls that the cases of terror of snakes while defecating appeared—strikingly enough— toward the end of each month; then that he had long been of the opinion, when a mere boy, that menstruation puts in its appearance toward the end of the month for the sake of orderliness, as it were— and finally that his father had once remarked to him that women were sexually most passionate at the period of menstruation. It was only when we obtained this second series of notions that we were in a position to complete and unify the picture of our interpretation. The two teachers in the first set of notions—the succession of incidents, beginning with the person of the hypnotizer, are substitute formations for the person of the father. The snake, however, is the Professor of Religion, as one of the notions definitely states. We may add: again the father, the father's member. It is the father's member which is here made a sort of anal love object, with a pronounced current of passive masochistic change at the end of the sadistic-anal phase of the development of the libido. Taking the place of the column of feces and of the feeling of lust connected with defecation; and it appears worth while to note also the identification with the boy's mother, in the second series of notions, which so important in the development of this neurosis, and the manner in which the anal zone appears—perhaps under the influence of immature sexual studies undertaken in infancy—transformed into a cloaca-orifice of passive—feminine character, into which the father's member penetrates at times of " particular sexual passion."

The notions with regard to the personality of the hypnotizer point through the two teachers directly to the father and also, in connection with their attachment to the hypnotizer, they lead back to the anal-erotic relation to the father. On being commanded to go to sleep by the hypnotizer, the hypnotized individual has awakened in him, as has been shown by Freud and Ferenczi, " a portion of his archaic heritage, which had also been conferred upon the parents and which had experienced an individual reinvigoration in the relations with the father," in which connection in our specific case, the infantile relation with the father bears in addition a strong libidinous note of its own and this enhances the possibility of hypnosis as becomes clear from what has been said above. This individual, so to speak, makes use of the opportunity afforded by the hypnosis, as an occasion for permitting the revival of the still strong libidinous fixation of his infantile relation to his father, which has—nevertheless—been changed long since into relations of kindly affection. Particularly characteristic is the hypnosis itself, as well as the series of notions whose connection is the phenomenon of a desire to laugh, a compulsion to laugh. Here we find a very characteristic companion piece to the person of the hypnotizer, who lays claim to a large share of power in the midst of the common events of daily life, a power that a critical test of reality would surely not bestow upon him, and to which the patient must none the less submit, in the persons of the two narrow-minded and much derided teachers. For the relations of kindly affection toward the father have for a long time been weakened by the sharp criticism of adolescence—the father is an old man—as the accompanying remark, we may note, indicates, to whom certain accomplishments must nevertheless be granted. In our case, therefore, the desire to laugh, just before going to sleep in hypnosis, appears determined as the final stage of the infantile relation to the father, originating in the unconscious, inhibited, and again revived in hypnosis, but it is likewise determined by the ambivalent attitude of the hypnotized to the hypnotizer, which vacillates between scorn and admiration, and is also dictated by the relation toward the father during the later period.

This observation is particularly instructive because it shows us that the natural impulses of the hypnotized are the determining factors in the variety and form of his susceptibility to hypnosis. The attempt at hypnosis producing a smile in the patient, awaken anal-erotic trends of ideas corresponding to the patient's impulsive tendency. We are dealing with the same ambivalent attitude toward the love-object which is familiar to us from compulsion neuroses.

This is also the source of our patient's smile. We may here insert the remark that laughter is not at all an unusual phenomenon at the beginning of hypnosis. In the case of compulsive neurotic characters, this laughter has the expression and the significance of derision, in hysteria and in the related types of character, it has the expression and the significance of a disguised erotic surrender. At any rate, we must be mindful of the fact that the sexual constitution of the individual finds an expression in the nature and form of the hypnosis. Persons strongly disposed to love, persons with the tendency to fixate love-objects powerfully, customarily are easily inducted into profound hypnosis. Hysterical individuals with a strong tendency for object fixation as a rule are particularly susceptible to hypnosis, while the hypnosis in the case of compulsion neurotics frequently encounters difficulties, which is connected with the sadistic attitude of compulsive neurotics toward their objects, (love objects). Although we are placing considerable emphasis on the erotic root of hypnosis, we are obliged, none the less, to point out that the eroticism of hypnosis constitutes a much constrained type of eroticism. We must even declare outright that we consider it as typical for hypnosis as such that its sexual content is necessarily not at first apparent to the individual. To be sure, this sexuality at first cut off from goals, frequently becomes further differentiated in the further course of events, and may be enhanced to the point of an offering of one's person. But this should not prevent us from recognizing that hypnosis is as a rule an erotic state with inhibited goals. In addition to the erotive root, as above described, hypnosis has a second root. This root is subordination to the authority of another. Anything calculated to enhance the authority of the hypnotizer or suggester also enhances the susceptibility to hypnosis. The hypnotizer's reputation, the knowledge of the fact that he has influenced other persons, his age, dignified appearance, higher social station—all these are factors favoring the hypnotizability of the persons experimented on. During the war, officers were as a rule harder to hypnotize than privates. Children, adolescents, are more susceptible to hypnosis than grownups. Persons not as a rule accustomed to recognizing authority of any kind are harder to hypnotize. We may state this thing in other words by saying that hypnosis is an attitude of subordination, an attitude of self-subjection. It remains the constant task of the hypnotizer to grasp correctly this situation, together with its libidinous background in the case of persons of different :. age, and social station and to make use of these relations by means of an hypnotic technique tactfully and rigidly adapted to the case. Thus, for example, one of our patients, a high state officer, had turned out to be entirely refractory in a number of hypnotic experiments. The obviously painful situation of being obliged to hear the introductory suggesting commands to sleep were thereupon spared the patient by informing him, at the opening of a new hypnotic experiment, that he need only lie on the sofa, whereupon he would fall asleep of his own accord, without any interference on the part of the hypnotizer. As a matter of fact this patient fell into a profound sleep a few minutes later, and the hypnosis thereupon proceeded satisfactorily, aided by his exceptional suggestibility. In this case, it was apparently necessary, at first, to remove certain resistances to hypnosis, which were conditioned by differences of age, presumably also of social station, in order to permit the exceptional hypnotic susceptibility of the patient to make itself felt. We may say however that the two muscular phenomena of hypnosis, namely, absolute relaxation and catalepsy, may both be conceived as the expression of an unconditional willingness to let oneself go. Even the position of the body in which hypnosis is practiced is an expression of complete subjection. The hypnotized person is recumbent, the hypnotizer stands by his side. We have every reason to assume that such attitudes correspond to the attitude in masochism. For the nucleus of the masochistic attitude is not to be found in the fact that the subject wishes to suffer pain, but that he subjects himself completely and unconditionally. Such a case is found in the statements of a schizophrenic who had presented masochistic traits from early youth, to the effect that one of his imaginings at the early age of six to eight had been that of being abducted by gypsies, of being seated on the lap of a gypsy woman. The pain, which is felt as pain, is suffered and sought as a symbol of absolute subjection.

Precisely this union of goal-inhibited eroticism and unconditional faith and subjection, describes the attitude characteristic of the relations between children and parents. This is an important attitude in the frame of the Oedipus complex which—as is well known—has not only a heterosexual form, but also a homosexual form. We cannot here take up the question of examining the relations between this hypnotic love-experience and the mature love-experience. But two traits are of considerable importance. In the case of the normal love-life, this subjection—where it occurs at all—is given in the case of both mates. Furthermore, in the mature love-experience, the personality of the beloved is, after all, seen in more individualized traits than those in which the hypnotized beholds the hypnotizer, or the suggested beholds the suggestor. But we shall devote more attention to these problems later on.

We shall attain a more profound understanding of the psychology of hypnosis by beginning with the psychology of masochism. In order to obviate misunderstandings, we take the liberty to point out the following with regard to our use of the term masochism, in accordance with the principles of psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis speaks of the polymorphously perverse(*) instinct-life of the child, but psychoanalysis does not fail to see that fully developed perversions are not a mere echo of infantile tendencies. To go apart from the fact that any instinctive impulse does not attain its full significance except when studied in connection with the entire psychic structure, which of course is quite different in childhood from that of the adult, we must also assume the existence of those differences between the infantile partial instinct and the perverse instinct, which are present when we compare a nascent psychic tendency with a full grown psychic tendency. Every Masochist also presents sadistic traits: vice versa, every Sadist also presents masochistic traits. The Masochist identifies himself with his ruler. By means of his subjection, he shares the enjoyment of the greatness and power of the latter. In occasional sadistic traits he expresses this identification. Freud has analyzed these mechanisms with perfect clearness. We identify ourselves only with those persons whom we should like to resemble in their essential essence, whose role we are ready to assume. In other words, the longing of the Masochist is the acquisition of power by the road of subjection. He serves, in order to have a share at least mentally in the power of the other person, and he who subjects himself without will to such a mighty one as a matter of fact not infrequently does in this way attain a morsel of the power which he would not have gotten in any other way. We should therefore be inclined to consider the primary impulse even of a Masochist as sadistic. But we do not underestimate the difficulty involved in the fact that masochistic traits are found also in Sadists, which obliges us to assign a certain independent significance also to the desire for subjection. In the last analysis, the contrary impulses are here again particularly close together and the final formulation of an instinctive impulse depends not only on the opposite impulse group, but also on conditions inherent in the entire personality. At any rate, we must retain the thought that an ambition to attain power by indirect means is present also in masochism.

(*) Polymorphous-perverse is Freud's designation for the sexual character of the child, in which it may transgress to all perversions because of its original bisexual character and habits.—Trans.

Transferring to the hypnotized person the facts thus learned, we find that he subjects himself so completely to the hypnotizer only for the reason that he wishes to have a share in the greatness of the hypnotizer. We may now ask, wherein consists the greatness of the hypnotizer, or, in other words, what is the significance of the hypnotizer to the hypnotized person? His abilities are found in the fact that alterations take place in the external world at his mere wish. For the hypnotized, at least, he is the great magician, who alone is capable, by his wish and will, to produce creative changes in the universe, to eliminate objects from the universe, or supply them to it. In addition, he has this great power over the bodily functions of the hypnotized, in other words, the hypnotizer is a magician, a sorcerer, in the mind of the hypnotized. We may assume, for the present, that the hypnotizer really does not possess these magic qualities. For some reason, the hypnotized must assign these qualities to the hypnotizer, or in other words, these magic faculties are projected into the hypnotizer. In our use of the word projection, we are expressing the fact that the desire for such a magic power must be living in the hypnotized person himself. To be sure, the hypnotized does not dare admit this wish to himself or conceive it as materialized in connection with his own person. Therefore he projects the wish to the hypnotizer and thus participates, by the path of identification, in a magic power which he could not otherwise ascribe to himself. The desire for omnipotence is thus pictured as fulfilled, by " unconscious manipulation " is projected out into the other person, and again absorbed into the other personality by the path of identification. It would hardly be possible to approach the psychological phenomena in hypnosis by simpler means.

A few general remarks on the desire for omnipotence are necessary. We have every reason to assume with Ferenczi that the child ascribes such omnipotence to itself in the most primitive stages of its development. We refer the reader to Ferenczi's essay for details. In psychoanalysis, we trace back such omnipotence to narcistic adjustments of impulse, to adjustments serving predominantly the love toward one's own body, toward one's own person. Only when such adjustments are over-powerful do body and world resolve themselves into one, the world similarly becoming as distinctly subject to the wishes as our own conception. We never completely relinquish this demand to control the world by the thought alone, without passing through the toilsome stage of actions adapted to reality. The desire for the existence of supersensual powers that move the world by thought alone or by forces resembling thought, is all too easily condensed in all of us into the belief that such forces really exist. All of us would be immensely strengthened in our self-confidence if any one at all should turn out to possess such magic power. For each one of us would have a share, as it were, in this Godlike faculty. Kaplan refers with insistence on the relations between hypnosis and animism. Here lies one of the profoundest roots of hypnosis. It is based on the psychology of the hypnotized and not on that of the hypnotizer. The hypnotizer's function is simply not to disturb the process. The reader will observe that here again we are regarding the infantile as the root of hypnosis. The hypnotizer makes use of the infantile element in the situation by his strokes, his monotonous lullabies, and other such performances, in this way adapting himself to the demands of the hypnotized.

We are accustomed, in psychoanalysis, to characterize psychic phenomena by pointing out those phenomena in the life of the child to which they furnish a regressive correspondence. In fact, we are actually speaking of a regression in this sense. We were therefore obliged to draw a parallel between the hypnotic state and that phase of infantile experience in which the child no longer has the courage of assigning magical faculties to itself but at least acknowledges them in its parents, thus sharing magical abilities at least through the intermediation of the parents, with whom it identifies itself.

To be sure, this characteristic is by no means present in all the phenomena of hypnosis and suggestion, for there is no doubt that regressions are attained in sleep which obviously lie even deeper. On the other hand, the obvious appearance of erotic traits would have to be ascribed to a higher stage of psychic development. In all the preceding remarks, we have characterized only the " chief fixation centers " of hypnosis. Bjerre finds in hypnosis a return to the embryonic state, a view that has only a partial justification. In certain phenomena of hypnosis (sleep phenomena), for sleep, according to the anal-erotic doctrine, which it is not our duty to expound here, presents essential traits of regression to the embryonic.

But there are gaps in our presentation up to this point from another point of view also. Our exposition ignores the fact that the regression here described embraces only certain sections of the personality. We have already pointed out that the hypnosis may be effected at various psychic depths. We have spoken of the psychic depth of hypnosis; in accordance with earlier formulations of one of the present authors, we might even say that the hypnosis is now closer, now further away from the center of the ego sphere. We have still to define more definitely, from a psychoanalytic standpoint, these descriptive concepts. It is most expedient, in this process to begin with the fact that the hypnotized who hallucinates negatively, nevertheless takes into consideration the reality that appears to him not to be real. He turns his eyes away from the negatively hallucinated objects and will find his way about in a chamber of the most complicated construction, though he may not appear to be aware of its construction. The actions corresponding with the hypnotic suggestion frequently make the impression of being weak, superficial, lacking in energy. But we must hold fast the thought that the hypnotized individual, though it live in a suggested world, nevertheless pays some attention, to a certain degree, in its actions, to the real world. In other words, ego ideals, which maintain intercourse with the world of reality, have retained a certain fixation. And it is these ego ideals which are constantly on guard to see that nothing shall befall the individual which might oppose its total objects; in other words, all those regressions of which we have spoken are only partial regressions, and a not inconsiderable section of the personality maintains normal relations with the outside world. An attitude of subordination located in the periphery of the ego is accordingly not far from acting, in the sense that has been explained above. It is worth while to ask what are the conditions present in the subjection found in hypnosis. It is only the subjection in hypnosis, not the subjection in any other sense, that equips the hypnotizer with magical faculties, or in other words, only the hypnosis subjection reaches the profound regressions expressed in the magical stages. Simultaneously, the hypnosis has penetrated down to their profound psychic layers, has been brought very close to the center of the ego. Even in such cases, we shall be obliged to doubt whether the faith in magical influencing becomes an inner conviction to the individual in the full sense in which this applies to certain schizophrenics. In fact, to go still further, it will be necessary to point out that we have shifted the fixation center of hypnosis to a point at which the individual is already almost ready to turn his back on the magical Weltanschauung. In the control, the masochistic subordination to the hypnotizer commonly predominates, and this masochistic subordination is characteristic also of subjection outside of the hypnosis. The center of gravity in this condition is shifted more and more to the adjustment lying within the masochistic-infantile- Oedipus complex.

Our exposition above now enables us to oppose the psychic phenomenon of hypnosis definitely to other modes of experience. The peculiar state of hysteria is characterized—as opposed to hypnosis—by the fact that there is no rapport to a suggestor, and we not infrequently find that a hypnosis passes over into the state peculiar to hysteria when the individual in hypnosis breaks the rapport. In hysteria, the individual lives directly for its own complexes. In hypnosis, the individual is living out (ausleben) these complexes through the intermediation of the hypnotizer; the regression to the magical is more pronounced in hypnosis. For this reason, the personality of the hypnotizer remains even more undifferentiated than the person to whom the hysterical individual transfers its infantile love-adjustments. In other words, the figure of the hypnotizer is even more stereotyped than the figure to which the hysterical person turns. This does not prevent the hypnotized person, in some cases, from assigning the power of the suggestor only to certain personalities, making that power " nontransferable" to others. For there enter into the hypnotic state not only the profoundly infantile material, but also, without doubt, differentiated libidinous impulses, differing in degree with the individual.'

An observation demonstrated by one of the present authors in a meeting of the Vienna Physicians' Association (Gesellschaft der Arzte) is of great interest in the study of the problem of the relations between hypnosis and hysteria. A sixteen-year-old boy was hypnotized by a lay hypnotizer, had a fit of insane violence in hypnosis, and attacked the hypnotizer, who knew no other course to take but to call for the assistance of the police. The hypnotized boy had to be manacled. When in the clinic, he had already been calmed and pacified, he knew nothing of what had taken place. A new hypnosis in the case of the same boy yielded the following information: The young man had been well known as a good medium in the vicinity of Vienna and had been repeatedly used by various persons, perhaps two hundred times altogether, for public exhibitions. One of these lay hypnotizers had on many occasions ordered him to go crazy and had suggested to him that a fly was approaching him, becoming larger and larger as it advanced, thus filling him with an sense of fear. During the hypnosis, which had taken place • Vienna, the other hypnotizer now appeared, and on the latter's command the young man now went through his feat. The witnessing hypnotizer was helpless when faced with this " insanity " originating in the earlier hypnosis. But in every hypnosis we are awakening something that has originated in profounder layers. We are always applying to the past which is anchored in the impulse of life. But even though there be connections between a far-penetrating hypnosis and hysteria, the differences are yet great enough to enable us to distinguish sharply between the two states. Hypnosis is therefore not an artificially induced hysteria, as was assumed by Charcot.

It is still easier for us to characterize hypnosis as contrasted with those states in which the belief in magical powers appears as a dominating force, namely, the paraphrenic and schizophrenic magicians. Here the individual lives in magic, and the attitudes originating in the Oedipus complex lose their significance.

We have several times spoken above of the relations between hypnosis and erotics, and by way of a final recapitulation we shall ask once more to what extent the erotic phenomena of the hypnotized differ from the actual love life. The materials for answering this question have in part been already given in the earlier portion of our exposition. We have pointed out that the hypnotizer as a rule has no personal value. He is a stereotyped outline, lacking spcific individual traits, while true love is characterized precisely by the fact that the object-person in some manner completely answers the requirements of this love. Only that love will be a rich love which the loved personality embraces in all its fullness. Accordingly, the traits of subjection can in no wise dominate so exclusively in love as they do in hypnosis, unless we assume the presence of the attitude of serfdom. Let us, for the rest, point out merely the general principle that a phenomenon embracing two persons can never run a course in which the attitude of the other personality is indifferent to the total experience. The peculiar position of the hypnotizer toward the hypnotized, and of the loving individual toward the individual loved, must be one of the essential determining influences in the phenomena of hypnosis and love. And, finally, we now come to the statement of a decisive point. In any true love and surrender, the individual yields himself without reservation. or at least, any such reservation is relegated far into the background of the experience. We have repeatedly emphasized the reservations made by the hypnotized. The surrender of the hypnotized is a surrender subject to recall. Hypnosis is thus deprived of that ultimate seriousness which characterizes any truly great passion. " Hypnosis is merely a shy attempt to return to chaos; it lacks the great, free, unconditional surrender."

The psychology of the hypnotized is incomplete without the psychology of the hypnotizer. The analysis of the hypnotizer is a problem that still remains to be done. But general considerations make it appear improbable that the hypnotizer does not feel what the hypnotized presupposes of him. He must feel incorporated in himself, in some obscure corner of his soul, this magical power; he must raise the demand for unconditional masochistic subjection and must bear within him the wish for the sexual subordination of the other person. The fear of violation on the part of the hypnotized necessarily is a concomitant of the wish to violate on the part of the hypnotizer. We very well know that lay hypnoses are—as a matter of fact—often made use of as a means of sexual approach. The transference made by the hypnotized must be accompanied by a counter transference made by the hypnotizer. It is worthy of note that an unsuccessful attempt at hypnosis produces in the hypnotizer a feeling of personal disappointment which far transcends those bounds that would express a mere natural interest in the business in hand. To be sure, all these experiences will, in the case of the hypnotizer, lie far out in the periphery of his experience. The hypnotizer has extremely wide sections of his personality turned away from all these things, in fact, the very essence of hypnosis is in the fact that the hypnotizer should be turned toward reality, should be in the full possession of highly developed and highly differentiated ideal egos, and that the regression characterized in the above remarks should remain limited to the extreme periphery of his soul.